Wednesday, March 16, 2016

POMONA CA - A PIT BULL AND A CHIHUAHUA MIX RAN LOOSE AND THE PIT CHASED AND BIT 2 STUDENTS AND POSSIBLY MORE OUTSIDE FREMONT ACADEMY

The Inland Valley Humane Society has taken possession of two dogs, one of which bit two teens and possibly more people Tuesday morning in front of Fremont Academy in South Pomona, the Humane Society reported.

The dogs — A PIT BULL AND A CHIHUAHUA MIX — will be under quarantine for 10 days “to make sure they are not showing any signs of rabies,” said James Edward, operations manager for the Inland Valley Humane Society and SPCA.

The attack occurred in front of the campus at 725 W. Franklin Ave., which serves seventh- through 12th-graders, said Fernando Meza, Pomona Unified School District’s administrative director of pupil and community services.

Pomona police received a report of the attack at about 7:40 a.m. Tuesday, said Pomona Police Department Lt. Christian Hsu.

Officers arrived and found two teens had been bitten while on their way to school.

One victim was a 15-year-old boy who is a student at Garey High School. THE PIT BULL CHASED THE BOY AND AFTER IT BIT HIM, “he ran to the (Fremont) school office,” Hsu said.

The second victim was a 13-year-old girl, a Fremont student. She too sought assistance at the school office AFTER THE DOG BIT HER, he said.

The parents of each teen took their child to hospitals for treatment, Hsu said.

They were both treated and released, Edward said.

Humane Society officers investigating the incident located the pit bull and the Chihuahua at their owner’s home, said Edward, adding he could not release the name of the owner Tuesday.

"Although it was the PIT BULL which bit the teens, both dogs were quarantined because they both were on the loose and both were aggressive, Edward said.

The owner of the dogs will have to make a decision as to whether to release the dogs to the Humane Society or have them euthanized, he said.

Due to the aggressive behavior of the dogs, “we wouldn’t put the dogs up for adoption,” Edward said.

Depending on the results of the investigation the dogs’ owner could be cited for leash law violations and, if the animals are not licensed, for having unlicensed dogs, he said.

Edward added dog owners should spay or neuter their dogs — the dogs in this case were not — and keep them confined in a secure location. The animals should also be vaccinated and have current licenses.

3 comments:

They need to stop protecting the owners of these frankenmaulers. If they publish the victim's name, exposing them to the terrorism of the pit bull crowd, then they must also publish the name of the domestic terrorist -- the pit freak -- who caused the carnage in the first place.

I'm amazed that the pit bull crowd complains about media bias, when that bias is so obviously oriented to protecting them rather than the victims of their killer undogs.

I would really like to see a picture of this chihuahua mix! I keep thinking...of some poor chihuahua forced to get pregnant by a pit bull and lord knows what the litter would look like, or for that matter, act like. I have a special place in my heart for the chihuahuas I have known. I've never heard of any chihuahua leaping across a room to chomp down on a person's neck and hold it and not let go until they are stone-cold dead. Where are the Chihuahua advocates from all across the land and why are they not coming to the defense of this Chihuahua mix that evidently barked and growled but didn't bite anyone but might be euthanize!!!?????!!!

THE CODE OF ALABAMA - 1975

Title: 6 CIVIL PRACTICE

Section 6-5-120

Defined.

A "nuisance" is anything that works hurt, inconvenience or damage to another. The fact that the act done may otherwise be lawful does not keep it from being a nuisance. The inconvenience complained of must not be fanciful or such as would affect only one of a fastidious taste, but it should be such as would affect an ordinary reasonable man.

(Code 1907, §5193; Code 1923, §9271; Code 1940, T. 7, §1081

Section 6-5-121

_____________________

Distinction between public and private nuisances; right of action generally.

Nuisances are either public or private. A public nuisance is one which damages all persons who come within the sphere of its operation, though it may vary in its effects on individuals. A private nuisance is one limited in its injurious effects to one or a few individuals. Generally, a public nuisance gives no right of action to any individual, but must be abated by a process instituted in the name of the state. A private nuisance gives a right of action to the person injured.

Use of force in defense of a person.

(a) A person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he or she may use a degree of force which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose. A person may use deadly physical force, and is legally presumed to be justified in using deadly physical force in self-defense or the defense of another person pursuant to subdivision (4), if the person reasonably believes that another person is:

(1) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force.

(2) Using or about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling while committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such dwelling.

(3) Committing or about to commit a kidnapping in any degree, assault in the first or second degree, burglary in any degree, robbery in any degree, forcible rape, or forcible sodomy.

(4) In the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcefully entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is in the process of sabotaging or attempting to sabotage a federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is attempting to remove, or has forcefully removed, a person against his or her will from any dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle when the person has a legal right to be there, and provided that the person using the deadly physical force knows or has reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act is occurring. The legal presumption that a person using deadly physical force is justified to do so pursuant to this subdivision does not apply if:

a. The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner or lessee, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person;

b. The person sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used;

c. The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

d. The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his or her official duties.

(b) A person who is justified under subsection (a) in using physical force, including deadly physical force, and who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and is in any place where he or she has the right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground.

(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), a person is not justified in using physical force if:

(1) With intent to cause physical injury or death to another person, he or she provoked the use of unlawful physical force by such other person.

(2) He or she was the initial aggressor, except that his or her use of physical force upon another person under the circumstances is justifiable if he or she withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his or her intent to do so, but the latter person nevertheless continues or threatens the use of unlawful physical force.

(3) The physical force involved was the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law.

(d) A person who uses force, including deadly physical force, as justified and permitted in this section is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the force was determined to be unlawful.

(e) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force described in subsection (a), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful.